GIFT  OF 
Hearst  Fountain 


LIBERAL  CHRISTIANITY, 


BY- 

LI 


FAY. 


LIBERAL  CHRISTIANITY. 


A     SERMON 


BY 

ELI 


DELIVERED    AT    THE    CHURCH    OF    THE   UNITY,   LOS 

ANGELES,    JANUARY   13,   REPEATED,   BY 

REQUEST,   JANUARY    27,    1889. 

AND  BY  A  GENERAL  DESIRE  PRINTED  IN  THIS  FORM. 


LOS  ANGELES,  CAL- 

T.   T.   JONES   ic    SON,   PRINTERS. 


•/, 


LIBERAL  CHRISTIANITY. 


Acts  xxiv.  14. — AFTER  THE  WAY  WHICH  THEY  CALL  HERESY, 

SO   WORSHIP    I    THE    GOD    OF    MY   FATHERS. 

I  Peter   Hi.  75. — BE    READY    AT    ALL    TIMES    TO    GIVE    TO    HIM 
THAT  ASKETH,  A  REASON  OF  THE  HOPE  THAT  IS  IN  YOU. 

Heresy  is  not  a  crime.  Heresy  is  simply  the  opinion  of  the 
minority.  In  Salt  Lake  City  Mormonism  is  orthodox.  In  Italy, 
Spain  and  Portugal  Romanism  is  orthodox.  In  Scotland  Pres- 
byterianism  is  orthodox.  But  for  a  long  time  Christianity  itself 
was  heresy.  And  in  the  great  religious,  political  and  social 
revolutions  of  the  world,  the  minority — the  heretics — have,  as  a 
rule,  been  nearest  the  truth.  So  Paul  dared  say  to  Felix,  before 
whom  he  was  to  be  tried,  "After  the  way  which  they  call  heresy, 
so  worship  I  the  God  of  my  fathers.  "  But  he  was  able  to  give  to 
those  who  asked,  a  reason  for  the  hope  that  was  in  him.  A 
REASON  !  that  which  a  good  lawyer,  a  thorough  scientist,  any 
man  who  wishes  to  see  the  philosophy  of  things  would  recognize 
as  a  valid  reason.  Not  a  mere  superstition  ;  not  a  conceit 
resting  on  a  bank  of  fog — but  a  REASON. 

There  is  one  fact  in  regard  to  which  there  is  entire  agreement 
among  all  classes,  viz.,  that  in  connection  with  theology  and 
religion,  radical  and  far-reaching  changes  are  going  on.  There 
may  be  utter  disagreement  as  to  whether  these  changes  are  for 
the  better  or  worse  ;  but  in  regard  to  many  doctrines  hitherto 
held  as  fundamental,  and  also  in  regard  to  the  very  essence  of 
religion,  that  radical  changes  in  the  public  mind  are  taking  place, 
have  already  taken  place,  cannot  be  doubted  by  any  fairly  in- 
formed person. 


2.  It  is  Equally 'apparent  that  a  very  large  proportion  of  the 
irrt concil able" 'dissenteis  from  the  old  definitions  of  religion,  are 
among  the  most  intelligent,  the  most  conscientious,  the  most 
respected  and  influential  of  the  communities  in  which  they  live. 
These  people  are  not  disbelievers  in  sacred  things.  On  the  con- 
trary they  are  theprofoundest  believers.  Indeed,  it  is  because  moral 
and  spiritual  concerns  have  become  so  real  to  them;  it  is  because 
they  are  disturbed,  even  distressed  when  the  intrinsic  beauty  of 
religion  is  marred,  its  natural  adaptedness  to  the  human  soul  is 
obscured,  and  its  sweet  influence,  its  refining,  elevating,  inspir- 
ing, directing  power  is  weakened  by  theological  technicalities, 
incongruities  and  absurdities,  that,  in  fidelity  to  their  finest 
moral  and  spiritual  instincts,  they  have  been  obliged  to  discard 
the  old  faith. 

It  is  at  this  precise  point  that  they  stumble.  They  do  not  and 
they  cannot  see  why  they  should  stultify  their  reason — their  only 
guide  in  connection  with  other  matters — for  the  purpose  of  ac- 
cepting religious  doctrines,  and  conforming  to  religious  customs 
that  were  conceived  in  the  dark  ages,  and  decided  upon  by  men 
who  would  now  be  regarded  as  ignoramuses  and  even  barbarians. 
They  do  not  believe  that  those  men,  who  had  not  seen  even  the 
morning  skimmer  01"  the  philological,  philosophical,  historic, 
scientific,  literary,  or  religious  light  of  our  day,  were  competent 
to  formulate  the  religious  creed  of  the  world  for  all  time.  To 
express  the  idea  is  to  disclose  its  weakness.  Should  not  theology 
be  elaborated  and  religion  expounded  in  accordance  with  our 
highest  intelligence,  our  finest  sentiments,  our  most  humane  and 
kindly  feelings?  Beyond  all  question  is  the  world  rapidly  pro- 
gressing in  every  other  department  of  thought  and  life,  but  in 
religion  were  the  utmost  limits  reached  in  the  dark  ages?  Do 
you  regard  that  as  reasonable  ?  Why  not  go  back  to  the  dark 
ages  for  our  science,  our  politics,  our  educational  system,  our 
music,  our  poetry,  our  means  of  transportation  ? 

And  therefore  Stopford  Brooke,  for  many  years  one  of  the 
ablest  clergymen  of  the  great  Church  of  England;  Prof.  Swing, 
long  a  star  of  the  first  magnitude  among  American  Presbyterians; 


5 

Dr.  Thomas,  a  prodigious  intellectual  force  and  a  decided  pulpit 
power  in  the  great  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  of  this  country; 
the  Rev.  Mr.  Savage,  once  among  the  brightest  young  ministers 
in  the  Congregational  body — today  one  of  the  strongest  men  in 
the  American  pulpit — and  scores  and  scores,  scarcely  less  emi- 
nent, declare  without  the  slightest  hesitation,  that  since  they 
abandoned  the  old  creeds,  the  faith  in  which  they  were  all 
brought  up,  and  embraced  Liberal  Christianity,  their  minds 
have  been  cleared  of  many  doubts  and  misgivings,  their  faith 
in  God  and  man,  in  the  beneficence  of  Providence  and  a  destiny 
for  our  race  that  will  be  creditable  to  our  Maker,  has  been  im- 
measurably strengthened,  their  spiritual  horizon  unspeakably 
broadened  and  brightened,  and  life  enriched  and  death  disarmed 
to  an  extent  incomprehensible  to  those  who  have  not  passed 
through  a  similar  experience. 

Some  months  ago  a  minister,  who  for  several  years  had  been  the 
pastor  of  the  First  Baptist  Church  of  Kansas  City,  having  changed 
his  faith,  was  installed  as  the  pastor  of  the  First  Unitarian  Church 
of  that  city.  And  as  showing  what  is  going  on  in  the  public 
mind,  every  one  of  the  ministers  assembled  to  take  part  in  the 
services  of  installation  was  a  convert  from  the  orthodox  ministry. 
And  within  the  past  two  weeks  I  have  been  called  upon  by  a 
bright  young  man  of  fine  address,  a  graduate  of  an  eastern 
college,  who  has  preached  for  two  or  three  years  in  an  orthodox 
denomination.  He  came  to  say  that  he  could  no  longer  preach 
orthodoxy  and  would  like  a  pulpit  among  us. 

And  these  men  only  represent  the  great  change  that  is  going 
on  throughout  Protestant  Christendom  and  the  high  motive  which 
is  prompting  it ;  and  consequently  it  will  not  do  to  charge  with 
infidelity,  or  even  with  indifference  to  religion,  those  who  are 
passing  through  the  theological  transition  that  is  modifying  the 
religious  thought  of  the  world. 

3.  In  this  community,  as  must  be  well  known,  there  are  very 
considerable  numbers  with  exceptionally  acute  moral  and  spirit- 
ual sensibilities,  and  a  wide  intellectual  outlook  who,  not  from  a 
sudden  impulse,  not  from  any  mere  freak  or  fancy,  but  from 


6 

profound,  gradually-formed  and  still  strengthening  convictions, 
are  entirely  out  of  sympathy  with  the  old  faith.  Many  of  these 
people  were  brought  up  in  that  faith  and  could  give  specific 
reasons  for  discarding  it.  But  as  the  masses,  engaged  in  daily 
practical  life,  can  hardly  be  expected  to  become  well-versed 
theologians,  many  of  this  class  know  better  what  they  are  not, 
than  what  they  are,  and  where  they  do  not  belong  than  where 
they  do.  There  is  also  a  considerable  class  who,  by  the  spirit  of 
the  time,  the  agitation  that  is  going  on,  the  utter  disbelief  that 
is  frequently  and  boldly  proclaimed,  and  the  evident  weakening 
of  the  old  faith  in  the  public  mind,  are  confused,  dazed,  bewil- 
dered, adrift,  and  therefore  exposed  to  danger;  and  unless  their 
attention  is  arrested  by  .a  type  of  religious  thought  that  is 
consonant  with  the  widening,  deepening  and  accelerating  intel- 
ledtual  and  religious  tendencies  of  the  day,  and  the  highest 
intuitions  of  the  soul,  to  them,  and  through  them  to  the 
community  at  large,  deplorable  consequences  will  certainly 
ensue.  And  inside  every  branch  of  the  Orthodox  church,  as  is 
perfectly  well  known,  there  is  inquiry  and  unrest,  anxiety,  doubt, 
and  suspense;  and  in  thousands  of  instances  strong  dissent  from 
the  doctrines  which  that  church  nominally  holds  to  be  funda- 
mental. Today,  the  intelligent,  the  reluctant  doubter,  and  there 
are  many  such,  is  the  truest  believer.  Today,  the  honest, 
conscientious,  fair-minded  man  who  says  he  holds  not  only  as 
untrue  but  as  positively  misleading  and  pernicious  much  that 
has  been  christened  in  the  sacred  name  of  religion,  is  probably 
among  the  most  reverent  and  exemplary  of  the  community  in 
which  he  lives.  It  is  well  and  widely  known  that  in  connection 
with  the  dominant  church  there  are  very  considerable  numbers 
who  are  in  a  false  position;  tacitly  assenting  to  doctrines  and 
forms  which  they  privately  acknowledge  to  their  friends  that 
they  no  longer  believe  or  accept.  Now  it  is  perfectly  obvious 
that  for  the  honor  of  the  church  herself,  in  the  name  of  religion, 
and  in  the  service  of  the  soul,  this  state  of  things  should  cease. 
It  cannot  remain  without  ultimately  impeaching,  for  their  dis-* 


honesty  and  double-dealing,  the  churches  to  which  these  persons 
belong. 

For,  if  Unitarianism  is  inimical  to  true  piety,  and  destructive 
to  the  soul,  it  is  quite  as  much  to  be  deprecated,  and  as  resolutely 
to  be  hunted  down,  inside,  as  outside  the  orthodox  church.  And 
yet,  by  the  admissions  of  its  own  press,  that  church,  including  its 
ministry,  is  honeycombed  through  and  through  by  the  fascinating 
heresy.  And  if  the  orthodox  churches  of  this  city  will  treat  as 
heretics  all  who  are  in  cordial  sympathy  with  our  broad  and  genial 
thought,  they  will  have  work  enough  for  the  next  year. 

4.  Almost  all  of  the  agitation,  the  unrest,  the  doubt,  the  denial 
and  the  change  of  base  to  which  I  have  referred,  are  occasioned 
by  increasing  sympathy  with  the  general  class  of  religious  ideas 
known  as  Liberal  Christianity.  This  is  perfectly  well  known. 
And  therefore  it  is  vastly  better  for  all  denominations  and  all 
moral  and  religious  interests,  that  particularly  in  an  active  and 
intelligent  community  like  this,  the  Liberal  church  should  be 
largely  and  vigorously  represented.  It  can  draw  from  the  Ortho- 
dox church  only  those  who,  for  their  own  comfort,  and  for  the 
sake  of  honesty  and  conscientiousness  in  religion  ought  to  leave 
it.  It  can  attract  from  the  great  non-church-going  masses,  only 
those  over  whom  orthodoxy  can  exert  no  positive  influence. 
And  yet,  as  each  political  party  acts  on  the  other,  greatly  to  the 
country's  good,  as  brakes  as  well  as  steam  are  necessary  to  a  train 
of  cars,  as  the  order  of  the  material  universe  is  preserved,  solely 
because  the  centripetal  and  centrifugal  forces  modify  one  another, 
so,  for  speaking  peace  to  many  a  soul  now  deeply  distressed,  for 
bringing  light  and  hope  and  joy  to  many  who  are  in  darkness  and 
despair,  for  providing  spiritual  asylum  for  numbers  now  un- 
churched, for  bringing  all  of  the  gravest  questions  to  the  arbitra- 
ment of  the  higher  reason,  for  its  legitimate  function  of  criticism, 
for  the  strong  emphasis  it  gives  to  practical  righteousness  as  well 
as  piety,  for  its  solemn  warnings  against  excessive  other- worldli- 
ness  in  religion,  for  its  well  known  sympathy  with  all  humanitarian 
movements  and  the  pre-eminent  character  of  its  literature,  to 
which  Channing,  Emerson,  Longfellow,  Martineau,  Holmes, 


Whittier,  Lowell,  Bancroft,  Starr  King  and  many  others,  among 
the  ablest  men  of  the  world  have  been  life-long  contributors, 
Liberal  Christianity  merits  and  is  receiving  the  cordial  recogni- 
tion of  the  civilized  world. 

And  now,  for  the  purpose  of  enabling  a  large  class,  for  whom 
I  have  profound  sympathy,  to  decide  whether  or  not  they  are  in 
general  accord  with  us,  I  shall  proceed  to  give  as  fully  as  possible, 
in  the  time  which  custom  allots  to  a  sermon,  the  doctrinal  views 
we  hold.  And  I  shall  do  this  with  the  full  persuasion  that  any 
faith  that  is  sacred  to  conscientious  people  ought  not  to  be  con- 
temptuously treated.  First,  then,  let  me  admit  that  though 
liberal  Christians  have  a  theology,  they  do  not  dogmatize.  They 
are  tolerant — liberal  towards  those  with  whom  they  disagree — 
because  they  do  not  believe  that  even  correct  views  of  theological 
technicalities  are  the  foundation  or  mainspring  of  the  religious 
life.  A  reprobate  may  have  very  correct  opinions  in  regard  to 
all  sacred  things,  and  a  true  lover  of  God  and  a  devoted  servant 
of  man  may  have  no  interest  whatever  in  dogmatic  theology. 
And  yet,  as  we  know,  there  are  conceptions  of  divine  things, 
God,  Christ,  the  conditions  of  salvation  and  the  outcome  of  life, 
which  are  well  calculated  to  exalt  or  depress,  inspire  or  dis- 
hearten. But  when  we  become  tolerant,  liberal,  though  we  may 
have  definite  opinions  of  our  own,  and  at  times  find  it  necessary  to 
defend  them,  we  yet  gladly  concede  that  the  salvation  of  the  soul 
does  not  hang  on  the  acceptance  of  specific  theological  notions, 
but  rather  on  the  personal  quality  and  character.  And  we  rejoice 
that  this  more  generous  conception  of  the  true  Christian  spirit  is 
beginning  to  find  expression  far  outside  of  our  fold.  And  yet, 
Liberal  Christians  exercising  their  reason,  in  connection  with 
religious  questions  as  everywhere  else,  interpreting  scripture  in 
the  light  of  history,  of  science,  of  other  sacred  books, — the  bibles 
of  other  nations,  and  in  accordance  with  our  common  moral  and 
spiritual  intuitions,  and  without  any  attempt  to  reach  a  general 
conclusion,  certainly  without  any  attempt  at  coercion,  any  per- 
secution for  opinion's  sake  are  fairly  agreed  upon  the  following 
great  affirmations  and  denials: 


I.  The  liberal  Christian,  with  all  the  intensity  of  conviction 
that  characterizes  his  orthodox  brother,  believes  in  God,  the 
Infinite  God,  the — all — pervading — Spirit,  the  Creator  and  up- 
holder of  all  things;  or  as  Paul  says,  "the  one  God  and  Father  of 
all,  who  is  above  all,  and  through  and  in  us  all.  "  Gladly,  enthu- 
siastically/In:  makes  this  proclamation.  But  believing  this  with 
all  his  heart,  and  emphasizing  it  with  all  the  strength  of  complete 
pursuasion,  the  Liberal  Christian  does  not  accept  the  doctrine  of 
the  Trinity,  and  for  tin-  following  reasons: 

1.  It  is  nowhere  stated    in    the  Bible,  nor  in  the  Bible  is  there 
•einent  that  is  .it    all    equivalent  to  the  proposition  that  God 

exists  in  three  Persons,  each  of  whom  is  also  the  very  and  eternal 
(iod.      Of  this  we  make  a  decided  point. 

2.  There    is    no    language    in   the    Bible  in  which  the  doctrine 
can  be  stated.      The  words  and    phrases:    Triune,  Triad,  Trinity, 
One  in  three,  Three    in  one.  First   Person,  Second    Person,  Third 

>n.  God  the  Son,  God  the  Holy  Ghost,  etc.,  etc.,  are  not  in 
the  Scriptures  Is  not  the  omission  remarkable  if  that  doctrine 
is  the  chief  corner-stone  of  Christianity  ? 

3.  Over  and  over  again  the    Bible   declares   that   God  is  one, 
not  three.      Over  and  over  again  the  Bible  declares  that  Christ  is 
the  Son  of  God,  not  God  the  Son.      In  proof  of  this,  I  could  quote 
chapter  and  verse  till  you  would  weary  of  the  repetition. 

4.  Clearly  assuming  the  unity  of  God's  nature,  consciousness, 
and  personality,  aim.  :i  thousand  singular  nouns  and   pro- 
nouns arc  used  in  the  Bible  when  speaking  of  him,  whereas,  if  in 
him  there'  were  a    Trinity  of  co-equal    Persons,  only  plural    nouns 
anil     pronouns    would    properly    represent    him.         Consider    the 

:iglh  of  this  argument. 

5.  It  is  not  found  in  the  creeds  of  the  early  church.     Cardinal 
Newman,  beyond  all  comparison    the    ablest    and   most   scholarly 
prelate  among  English-speaking  Catholics,  frankly   acknowledges 
that  the  earlier  creeds  of  the  church  do  not  teach    the    doctrine — 
a  very  remarkable,  yet  truthful  concession. 

6.  With  all  respect  for  our  brethren  of  the  Orthodox  faith  and 
stating    the    fact    as    gently  as  possible.  We  vet  say  that  to  us  the 


10 

doctrine  of  the  Trinity  is  absolutely  unthinkable.  When  we  are 
told  that  there  are  three  Persons,  each  of  whom  is  absolutely 
God;  that  the  Father  is  God  because  in,  and  of  himself  he  pos- 
sesses all  the  attributes  of  God;  that  the  Son  is  God  because  in 
and  of  himself  he  possesses  all  the  attributes  and  powers  of  the 
Godhead,  and  the  same  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  and  yet  that  there  is 
but  one  God,  our  reply  is  that  we  do  not  see  how  people  can  be- 
lieve the  proposition  any  more  than  we  see  how  people  could 
believe  the  following,  that  in  principle  is  identical  with  it,  viz.: 
there  are  three  persons,  Peter,  James  and  John,  each  of  whom 
is  a  man  because  he  possesses  all  the  attributes  of  a  man,  and  yet 
there  is  but  one  man.  Is  not  the  difficulty  of  belief  precisely  the 
same  in  the  two  cases? 

And  now  without  the  slightest  asperity,  and  yet  as  showing 
how  far  the  current  theology  has  strayed  from  sound  logic,  and 
even  from  common  sense,  it  is  sufficient  to  say  that  if  under  oath, 
a  man  were  to  declare  his  belief  that  three  persons,  each  of  whom 
is  a  man  because  he  has  in  himself  all  the  attributes  of  a  man, 
constitute  but  one  man,  he  would  be  ordered  off  the  witness's 
stand  as  incompetent  to  testify,  and  the  fact  might  be  used  as 
evidence  of  hisinsanity.  But  if  he  declares  his  belief  that  three  per- 
sons, each  of  whom  is  God,  because  he  possesses  all  the  attributes 
of  God  constitute  but  one  God,  he  is  thought  to  be  sound  in  the 
faith.  What  are  we  obliged — obliged  to  think  of  the  intellectual 
character,  the  intellectual  loyalty  of  the  man  who  declares  it  to  be 
his  firm  belief  that  the  builder  of  this  material  universe,  he  who  as 
truly  lived  and  wrought  and  reigned,  and  was  as  greatly  needed 
in  the  sun,  moon  and  stars  as  in  this  speck  of  earth,  came  here 
1800  years  ago  and  was  actually  born  of  a  woman  as  the  only 
means  of  recovering  what  he  had  inadvertently  lost — that  the 
Virgin  Mary  carried  in  her  arms  and — n-u-r-s-e-d  at  her 
b-r-e-a-s-t,  as  a  hungry,  crying  child,  the  illimitable  and  ever- 
lasting God  ;  him  "who  dipped  his  fingers  in  chaos  and  flung  off 
worlds."  I  put  it  to  you  strongly:  is  that  believable? 

Feeling  it  to  be  our  religious  duty  to  abide   by  our  absolutely 
distinct  intellectual   perceptions,   that  disloyalty  to  vivid  ideas  is 


gross  injustice  to  the  light  God  has  given  for  our  guidance,  we 
reject  this  doctrine.  And  yet  God  with  his  one  mind,  one  will, 
one  consciousness,  one  Person,  with  his  indivisible  Unity,  is  to 
us,  all  that  he  can  be  to  our  Trinitarian  brethren;  infinite  in  wis- 
dom, goodness,  power,  love;  our  Father  and  everlasting  Friend, 
the  all  in  all  of  things  ;  and  we  think  that  our  idea  of  Him  is 
immensely  superior  to  the  other,  in  this  respect.  Its  simplicity 
and  complete  intelligibility  unifies  and  vivifies  our  conception  of 
him,  and  by  eliminating  the  complexity  and  the  perplexity  which 
have  greatly  disturbed  millions,  it  conduces  to  a  sweet  and  whole- 
some piety,  and  to  the  natural  and  healthy  action  of  the  mind. 
And  this  is  an  obvious  practical  advantage  that  can  hardly  be 
over-estimated. 

II.  Believing  implicitly  in  the  divine  wisdom  and  goodness, 
we  cannot  accept  the  doctrine  of  the  Fall  of  Man;  as  it  seems  to 
us  that  it  directly  and  unanswerably  impugns  the  moral  character 
of  God.  You  know  what  it  is,  as  you  have  heard  it  again  and 
again.  God  created  Adam  and  Eve  and  placed  them  in  the 
Garden  of  Eden,  having  planned  for  them  immunity  from  all  evil 
and  suffering,  and  unspeakable  and  eternal  happiness  in  this 
world.  But  from  pure  diabolism,  from  envy,  and  jealousy,  and 
hatred,  and  malice,  a  great  evil  being  whom  God  also  created, 
and  who  had  previously  attempted  to  wrest  from  the  Almighty 
the  jurisdiction  of  his  kingdom,  entered  Eden  in  the  form  of  a 
serpent,  and  tempted  Adam  and  Eve  not  only  to  their  own  ruin, 
but  causing  also  the  corruption  and  ruin  of  the  entire  human 
family,  subjecting  them  to  the  wrath  and  curse  of  God.  We 
reject  this  doctrine  for  the  following  reasons  : 

*  i.  Science  makes  it  altogether  improbable  that  Adam  and 
Eve  were  created  as  it  is  popularly  supposed  they  were.  If  the 
doctrine  of  Evolution,  now  accepted  by  the  leading  thinkers 
of  the  world  is  true,  it  is  entirely  certain  that  they  were  not  thus 
created. 

2.  If  the  doctrine  of  Evolution  is  true,  it  is  almost  certain 
that  the  entire  human  family  did  not  originate  with  Adam  and 
Eve,  but  rather,  as  one  scientist  puts  it,  there  must  have  been  a 


12 

dozen  Adams;  in  which  case  the  doctrine  in  question  utterly 
fails.  And  the  hypothesis  that  the  human  family  originated  at 
different  times  and  places,  and  so  had  a  various  parentage  ex- 
plains many  facts  which  hitherto  have  greatly  puzzled  the  critical 
student  of  human  history  and  of  diverse  human  peculiarities. 

3.  To  us,  it  is  entirely  clear  that  an  infinitely  wise  and  good 
God   would  not,  and  could  not  have  created  such  a  being  as  the 
devil  is  represented  to  be,  and  turned  him  loose  to  dispute  even 
the  divine  Sovereignty,    thwart   the    divine   plans,    and   deceive, 
torment,  and  ruin  the  human  family.      What   father  would  allow 
a  profane,  lying,  drunken,  licentious,  yet  fascinating,  human  devil 
to   associate   with    his  children   and    tempt    them    to   their  utter 
destruction? 

4.  According  to  this  doctrine  God  was  thwarted,  circumven- 
ted, defeated  and  compelled   to  change  his  base  and   begin  anew, 
and  for  thousands  of  years  he  has  been  ineffectually  striving  to 
recover  what  he  lost  by  the  first  stroke  of  his  arch  enemy;   the 
devil  has  snatched  from  the  divine  hand  the  reins-of-government, 
and   today   the   kingdom    of   God    is  in   ruins.      Mr.  Moody,  the 
most  successful  living   revivalist,  who  has  been  endorsed   by  the 
great  orthodox  denominations  of  the  country,  says:  "This  world 
is  a  wreck  and  is  bound  to  sink.      The  most   that  we  can  do  is  to 
get  off  as  many  as   possible  of  her  passengers  and  crew,  and  let 
her  go."     Now  is  it  not  as  clear   as  a  sunbeam    that   Mr.  Moocly, 
and  all  who  agree  with  him,  worship  and  serve  either  a  malignant 
God  who  planned  to  wreck  the  world    and   the  human  race,  or  a 
defeated,   disappointed,   incompetent  and    dishonored    God   who 
was  no  match  for  the  devil  ? 

I  am  not  exaggerating,  as  according  to  this  doctrine  the  great 
enemy  of  God  and  man  is  in  the  ascendant,  and  a  vast  majority 
of  the  human  family  are  at  this  moment  on  the  road  to  eternal 
destruction.  In  this  are  obviously  involved  both  the  wisdom 
and  the  moral  character  of  God.  For  example,  if  even  of  his 
professed  generosity  a  man  should  build  high  above  a  city,  a 
reservoir  for  the  storage  of  water  for  that  city's  good,  and  the 
first  time  the  reservoir  was  filled,  the  dam  should  break  awav 


and  the  whole  plain  below  be  deluged  and  the  city  destroyed, 
would  it  not  be  clear  that  the  plan  of  the  reservoir  was  not  well 
devised  or  that  the  work  was  not  well  done;  and  that  in  either 
case  and  on  the  highest  moral  grounds,  and  despite  the  good 
intentions  of  the  builder  he  would  not  only  be  responsible  for  the 
overwhelming  disaster,  but  afterward,  totally  unworthy  of  con- 
fidence as  a  business  man?  Applying  the  same  principle  to  the 
case  in  hand,  our  only  alternative  is  to  reject  the  doctrine  under 
consideration,  as  it  not  only  impugns  the  moral  character  of  God, 
but  by  teaching  that  his  first  great  world  scheme  for  our  race 
was  utterly  frustrated,  it  destroys  all  ground  of  confidence  in 
him.  In  our  terrible  civil  war,  we  learned  from  sad  experience 
that  a  commander  who  had  once  been  surprised,  routed  and 
driven  from  his  own  chosen  ground,  his  soldiers  slain  and  his 
ammunition  captured,  could  not  again  be  trusted,  as  he  could 
give  no  assurance  that  in  the  next  emergency  a  similar  disaster 
would  not  await  him.  Dear  friends,  if  you  wish  me  to  believe 
and  trust  in  God,  pray  do  not  tell  me  that  he  has  once  been  com- 
pletely out-generalled  by  the  devil,  and  has  not  yet  recovered 
from  the  immeasurable  disaster. 

5.  We  reject  this  doctrine  because  the  penalty  it  inflicts  is 
appallingly,  infinitely  disproportioned  to  the  crime  said  to  have 
been  committed.  If  a  small  boy,  arrested  in  Los  Angeles  for 
stealing  an  apple,  were  sentenced  to  imprisonment  for  life  in  a 
dark  cell,  and  to  subsistence  upon  bread  and  water,  that  sentence 
could  not  be  executed,  nor  could  the  judge  rendering  it  retain  his 
office,  so  irrepressible  would  be  the  moral  indignation  that  would 
be  excited  in  this  community.  And  yet  even  such  a  sentence  for 
such  a  crime  is  but  a  drop  to  the  ocean,  in  comparison  with  the 
eteriial-damnation-of-unco2inted-millions — as  the  result  of  two 
persons  eating  once  of  forbidden  fruit.  Punish  them  as  they 
deserve,  but  in  heaven's  name  do  not  forever  damn  them  and  a  vast 
majority  of  their  posterity  to  the  end  of  time. 

III.  We  believe  that  man  ii>as,  and  still  ts,  created  in  the 
image  of  God;  that  by  nature  he  is  a  child  of  God;  that  he  needs 
religion  not  because  Adam  or  anybody  else  has  sinned,  but  because 


14 

he  has  a  moral  and  spiritual  constitution  that  is  adapted  to  a  moral 
and  spiritual  experience,  as  the  wing  of  the  bird  to  air,  and  the  fin  of 
the  fish  to  water.  We  believe  that  with  promptings  as  sweet  and 
natural  as  those  which,  with  all  its  little  troubles,  take  a  child  to  its 
mother's  arms,  a  man  may  come  directly  into  the  presence  of  God, 
and  that  even  in  his  sins,  he  has  no  other  friend  like  his  Heavenly 
Father.  And  therefore  we  do  not  accept  the  doctrine  of  the  vicarious 
atonement,  viz.,  that  in  our  room  and  stead  Christ  died,  suffering 
the  penalty  that  was  due  to  us.  According  to  our  conception 
of  the  character  of  God  and  of  the  nature  of  forgiveness,  no  such 
atonement  was  either  necessary  or  possible. 

1.  To  us  it  seems  to  be  in  direct  conflict  with  the  doctrine  of 
the   divine   mercy.      God   would   not   forgive   the   sinner  till  the 
penalty  of  his  broken  law  had  been  visited  upon  some  one,  and 
God  himself  actually  inflicted   that  penalty   upon   his   son   Jesus 
Christ.      Thus  the  innocent   suffered  instead  of  the  guilty,  which 
completely  reverses  our  instinctive  idea  of  both  justice  and  mercy, 
and   destroys,  were  it  possible  to  destroy,  the  relations   between 
innocence   and   internal   comfort,    and   crime   and   its   legitimate 
consequences.      There  is  neither  justice  nor  mercy  in  punishing 
the  innocent  instead  of  the  guilty. 

2.  This  doctrine  is  totally  irreconcilable  with  that  of  the  par- 
able of  the  prodigal  son,  given  by  Christ  for  the  purpose  of  illus- 
trating the  forgiving  love  of  God.     Solely  through  the  promptings 
of  the   true,  fatherly  heart,  and  not  because  an  innocent  person 
had   suffered   the   penalty  due   to   the  foolish  and  wicked   young 
man,  he  was  received  back  into  the  dear  old   home.      And   does 
not   this   settle  forever  the  question   as   to  the   condition   of   the 
divine  forgiveness? 

3.  We  fully  believe  that  this  doctrine  is  immoral  in  its  ten- 
dencies;  as   it    presents  a   substitute  for  high  moral  character > 
for  actual  personal  worth,  and  appeals  to  low  and  selfish  motives. 
It  says  in  so  many  words  that  dependence  upon  conformity  to- 
the  moral  law,  as  a  condition   of  salvation,  is  offensive   to  God 
and   dangerous   to  the  soul;   that  our  only   hope  of%  heaven  is  in 
the  blood  of  Christ.      And  in  as  much  as  personal  worth  is  thus 


15 

openly  and  purposely  disparaged,  we  are  not  surprised  that 
among  large  numbers  who  profess  to  have  been  saved  by  the 
vicarious  atonement,  the  standard  of  character  is  so  low  that 
business  men  from  a  business  standpoint  fight  shy  of  them.  By 
downright  falsehood  and  misrepresentation  and  all  the  tricks  of 
trade,  as  in  both  hemispheres  I  have  repeatedly  been  told, 
business  men  are  frequently  deceived  and  profusely  bled  by 
church  members  who  are  staking  their  eternal  salvation  on  the 
blood  of  Christ.  A  bishop  of  the  Church  of  England  recently 
bemoaned  the  low  standard  of  morality  among  Christians;  and 
a  few  years  ago  the  great  Wesleyan  body  of  England  appointed 
a  day  of  fasting  and  prayer  in  consequence  of  the  same  deplorable 
condition.  But  how  can  it  be  otherwise  when  from  the  pulpit 
and  in  the  sacred  name  of  religion,  the  sterling  moralities  are 
declared  to  be  of  no  account  in  the  salvation  of  the  soul?  Indi- 
vidual worth  is  as  filthy  rags.  We  are  to  be  saved  because 
Christ  suffered  in  our  stead,  not  because  we  are  worth  saving. 

And  according  to  this  definition  of  religion,  there  is  many  a 
diminutive  and  slippery  saint  whose  word  you  would  not  take, 
who  could  not  get  trust  for  a  pound  of  meat  or  a  yard  of  cloth, 
and  to  whose  low  personal  level  you  would  be  ashamed  to  de- 
scend, but  who  is  in  high  favor  with  God  and  on  the  road  to 
heaven;  and  many  a  splendid  sinner  whose  word  is  as  good  as 
his  bond,  who  is  trusted  and  honored  by  all  who  know  him,  but 
who  is  on  the  road  to  hell.  It  is  this  definition  of  religion  that 
is  arousing  widespread  dissatisfaction,  not  to  say  downright 
scepticism.  And  that  you  may  see  how  the  question  of  accept- 
ing salvation  because  Christ  is  represented  to  have  suffered  in 
our  stead,  is  affecting  many  of  the  noblest  minds,  involving  as  it 
does  a  high  moral  principle,  and  the  very  foundation  of  true 
self-respect,  I  will  ask  you  to  consider  the  following  circumstance: 
About  fifty  years  ago,  in  western  New  York,  there  was  a  school 
in  which  were  a  large,  coarse-fibred,  headstrong  boy  who 
was  full  of  malicious  mischief  and  low,  vulgar  tricks;  and  another 
of  exactly  the  opposite  temperament  and  tendency;  auburn 
haired,  light-complexioned,  blue-eyed,  high-minded,  thoroughly 


1G 

truthful,  but  still  a  fun-loving  boy.  One  day,  while  the  back  of 
the  master  was  turned,  a  circumstance  occurred  which  greatly 
enraged  him;  and,  as  the  two  boys  above  described  were  sitting 
side  by  side,  the  master  assuming,  of  course,  that  the  first  named 
was  the  guilty  one,  prepared  to  punish  him  severely;  and  in 
those  days  punishment  in  school  meant  something.  But  just  as 
the  great  cherry  ruler  was  about  to  fall  with  awful  force  upon 
the  open  palm  of  the  first  above  named,  the  second  sprang  to 
his  feet  and  exclaimed,  "Sir,  John  did  not  do  it,  I  did  it.  I 
intended  no  harm,  did  not  think  what  I  was  doing,  and  I  am 
very  sorry;  but,  sir,  do  not  punish  John  for  what  I  did.  I  could 
not  bear  that.  Please  punish  me.  " 

And  now  the  question  I  put  to  you,  the  question  I  would  put  to 
the  civilized  world,  the  question  which  I  willingly  leave  at  the  door 
of  the  human  heart  is,  whether  in  declining  to  accept  salvation  from 
punishment  through  the  suffering  of  an  innocent  party,  that  boy 
did  not  manifest  a  spirit  incomparably  finer  and  nobler,  a  senti- 
ment vastly  more  creditable  and  more  truly  religious,  than  he 
would  have  done  had  he  allowed  John  to  receive  the  penalty  due 
himself.  Is  it  not  perfectly  obvious  that  without  sacrificing  his 
self-respect,  without  cowardice  and  selfishness  and  demoralization 
at  the  very  fountain  of  his  life,  he  could  not  have  allowed  an- 
other to  suffer  in  his  stead?  It  is  at  this  precise  point  that  this 
doctrine  is  distressing  thousands  of  the  finest  spirits  of  the  age — 
people  of  the  acutest  moral  and  spiritual  sensibilities. 

Horace  Mann,  one  of  the  noblest  souls  that  ever  dwelt  in  flesh, 
once  said  that  if  he  were  to  accept  the  orthodox  conditions  of 
salvation,  and  thereon  enter  heaven,  he  should  be  eternally 
ashamed  to  look  Christ  in  the  face.  Think  of  congratulating  our- 
selves that  our  bondsman  had  to  pay  our  debts — that  another's 
fingers  are  in  the  trap  on  our  account  while  we  go  free.  Thus  is 
it  turning  out  that  much  of  the  so-called  infidelity  of  our  day  is 
evincing  an  incomparably  finer  feeling,  a  profounder  self-respect, 
than  much  of  the  religion  of  our  day.  And  it  was  on  this  and 
kindred  ground  that  one  of  the  most  intelligent  women  on  this 


coast  recently  declared  that  administered   religion   had   become 
positively  demoralizing. 

But  do  not  infer  that  Christ  is  of  no  account  to  us,  because  we 
do  not  accept  the  vicarious  atonement.  In  our  conception  of 
divine  things  we  think  Christ  is  not  less  but  more  important  than 
he  is  according  to  the  orthodox  conception.  That  represents  him 
as  the  great  physician.  And  the  physician  holds  an  important 
place,  but  the  physiologist's  is  even  more  important.  For,  necessary 
as  it  is  that  some  should  know  how  to  administer  medicine 
properly,  it  is  vastly  more  necessary  that  we  should  be  so  instructed 
and  so  live  as  not  to  need  it.  And  this  illustrates  the  radical  dif- 
ference between  the  two  systems  of  thought.  In  the  one,  Christ 
is  the  great  physician,  and  religion  is  a  medicine.  To  how  large 
a  number  has  it  been  a  very  bitter  medicine!  In  the  other, 
Christ  is  the  great  teacher,  unfolding  the  laws  of  the  moral  and 
spiritual  life,  as  the  physiologist  shows  the  influence  on  the  body 
of  good,  plain,  nutritous  food,  pure  air  and  pure  water,  exercise 
and  rest,  cheerfulness  and  sunshine,  the  great  natural,  universal, 
indispensable  agents  for  the  preservation,  and  even  the  restoration 
of  health. 

IV.  We  reject  the  doctrine  of  endless  punishment;  and  we  have 
numerous  and  unanswerable  reasons  for  so  doing.  Upon  these 
reasons  I  cannot  now  enter  seriatim.  The  time  is  too  short. 
Suffice  it  to  say,  first,  that  neither  God  nor  angel,  neither  man 
nor  devil,  could  derive  the  slightest  benefit  from  the  eternal  suf- 
fering of  any  creature, — insect  or  fiend.  What  good  could  it  do? 

I  cannot  understand  the  man  who  shoots  down  a  frae  and 
innocent  bird,  or  catches  fish,  or  hunts  wild  animals  for  sport. 
Is  it  nothing  to  maim  a  living  creature  and  send  it  through  all  the 
tortures  of  a  lingering  death?  I  cannot  understand  the  man  who 
knows  that  his  habits  are  wringing  scalding  tears  from  one  who 
would  die  for  him  if  he  were  loyal  to  her.  Do  we,  thick-skinned, 
nerveless,  insensate  creatures  realize  what  agony  is?  But  what 
of  anguish  that  never  lifts,  torment  excruciating  and  eternal. 

Secondly:  the  doctrine  is  irreconcilable  with  the  character  of 
God.  Beyond  all  question,  if  the  creation  of  man  unavoidably 


18 

involved  such  exposure,  then  the  creative  act  should  not  have 
been  performed.     We  sing  with  the  poet,  who  said: 

Thank  God  that  I  have  lived  to  see  the  time 
When  the  great  truth  begins  at  last  to  find 
Expression  from  the  deep  heart  of  mankind, 
Noble  and  free,  that  all  revenge  is  crime, 
That  man  is  holier  than  any  creed, 
That  all  restraint  upon  him  must  consult  his  good, 
Hope's  sunshine  linger  on  his  prison  walls, 
And  love  look  in  upon  his  solitude. 

We  think  that  heaven  will  not  be  shut  forevermore 

Without  a  knocker  left  upon  the  door, 

Lest  some  belated  wanderer  should  come, 

Heart-broken,  asking  just  to  die  at  home; 

So  that  the  Father  will  at  last  forgive, 

And  looking  in  his  face,  that  soul  shall  live. 

We  think  there  will  be  watchmen  out  through  all  the  night 

To  lead  the  lost  from  darkness  into  light, 

That  he  who  loved  us  into  life  must  be 

A  father,  infinitely  fatherly ; 

And  groping  for  him,  these  shall  find  their  way, 

From  outer  darkness  into  perfect  day. 

This  is  our  faith;  and  in  it  we  gladly  and  gratefully  rest.  You 
must  perceive  that  it  is  not  a  series  of  glittering  negations.  We 
affirm;  affirm  variously,  broadly,  strongly,  grandly.  It  seems  to 
us  that  no  other  church  affirms  so  much. 

We  affirm  the  divine  existence,  the  divine  sovereignty,  the 
divine  love. 

We  affirm  that  God  is  God,  and  that  he  understands  his  bus- 
iness. 

We  affirm  that  evil  and  sin  are  temporary,  and  that  truth  and 
righteousness  are  the  eternal  principles  and  must  ultimately  pre- 
vail. 

We  affirm  that  this  is  God's  world,  the  government  of  which  he 
does  not  share  with  a  great  evil  being  who  keeps  him  under  per- 
petual limitations. 


19 

We  affirm  that  human  nature  and  human  life  are  intrinsically 
sacred — a  condition  that  alone  makes  sin  possible. 

We  affirm  the  grand  prerogatives  as  well  as  the  resposibilities 
of  the  human  soul. 

We  affirm  that  the  most  effectual  way  of  saving  a  man,  in  the 
largest  and  truest  sense,  is  to  make  him  a  man.  Soul-building 
is  the  best  and  cheapest  process  of  soul  saving. 

We  affirm  that  all  legitimate  experience  is  religious. 

Are  not  these,  transcendent  and  inspiring  affirmations  ?  They 
express  the  growing  conviction  of  the  world.  We  know  nothing  of 
a  good  Christian,  who  is  a  bad  husband  or  father,  or  wife  or  mother 
— nothing  of  a  good  Christian  who,  receiving  the  communion  on 
Sunday,  tells  business  lies  through  all  the  following  week ;  nothing 
of  a  good  Christian  who  puts  the  best  apples  and  oranges  at  the  top 
of  the  boxes,  and  worthless  ones  at  the  bottom;  intending  to  balance 
the  account  by  singing  peans  to  the  grace  of  God  and  the  blood  of 
Jesus  Christ. 

We  do  not  believe  that  the  mother,  whose  ragged  and  dirty 
children  are  running  in  the  street  from  morning  till  night,  has  a 
right  to  give  a  cent  or  a  moment  to  the  Foreign  Missionary  Society. 
She  had  better  organize  in  her  own  house  a  society  for  the  conver- 
sion of  heathen.  We  believe  that  the  home  is  as  sacred  as  the 
church ;  that  the  multiplication  table  and  the  moral  law  work 
towards  the  same  great  end ;  that  truth,  and  beauty,  and  music,  and 
society,  and  love,  and  labor,  and  even  disappointment  and  sorrow, 
are  helps  in  the  education  and  development  of  the  soul.  Wre  believe 
that  true  religion,  instead  of  being  repugnant  to  human  nature,  is 
its  consummate  flowering  and  fruitage. 

I  need  not  be  told  that  thousands,  whose  faith  I  have  criticised 
this  morning,  are  excellent  people,  or  that  they  are  doing  excellent 
Christian  work.  I  understand  that.  But  the  point  I  make  is  that 
in  their  work  of  religious  self-culture,  or  of  Christian  propagandism, 
they  are  not  helped,  but  greatly  hindered  by  the  doctrines  I  have 
reviewed.  These  doctrines  never,  never  brought  a  ray  of  light  or  a 
thrill  of  rational  joy  to  a  single  soul,  but  they  have  filled  millions 
with  unutterable  gloom  and  foreboding.  By  thousands  within  the 
orthodox  fold  they  are  felt  to  be  an  incubus  upon  the  Christian 


church.  You  prefer  not  to  hear  them  and  with  good  reason.  Their 
character  is  indicated  by  the  fact  that  they  constitute  Mr.  In- 
gersoll's  stock  in  trade.  Our  orthodox  friends,  whom  we  respect 
and  love,  are  genial,  hopeful,  trustful,  charitable,  tender,  not  because 
of  these  doctrines,  but  in  spite  of  them.  God  be  thanked  that 
there  are  vast  numbers,  so  sweet  and  pure,  and  spontaneous  of  heart 
that  their  terrible  creed  produces  but  little  effect  upon  them.  But 
if  you  would  know  what  effect  it  produces  upon  natures  severely 
logical,  read  what  Catherine  Beecher  says  of  the  effect  upon  her,  of 
her  own  father's  preaching.  It  nearly  drove  her  to  the  insane 
asylum.  Many  and  many  an  hour  when  she  should  have  been 
asleep,  she  spent  in  tears,  that  she  had  bsen  born.  And  her  ex- 
perience has  been  repeated  ten  thousand  thousand  times.  It  is  not 
a  week  since  a  devoted  wife  and  mother,  a  thoroughly  conscientious 
and  high  minded  woman  of  this  city,  declared  that,  influenced  by 
these  doctrines,  in  agony  and  tears  she  had  repeatedly  deplored  her 
own  existence. 

Dear  friends,  I  never  visit  the  homes  of  the  poor  and  distressed, 
I  never  bow  at  the  bedside  of  the  sick  and  the  dying,  I  never  stand 
at  the  head  of  an  open  grave,  into  which,  struck  down  at  the  high 
noon  of  life,  a  beloved  husband  is  being  buried,  and  realize  that 
from  that  hour,  a  widow,  desolate,  tearful,  over-burdened,  haggard, 
heart-hungry,  world- w~eary,  will  tread  alone  her  winding  path, 
without  thanking  God  from  the  lowest  depth  of  my  soul  for  the 
faith  that  in  the  sorest  trial,  gives  confidence  and  joy  and  peace. 
And  if  I  can  aid  a  little,  in  planting  in  this  growing  city,  a  church 
whose  special  function  it  shall  be,  to  shoot  rays  of  heavenly  light 
through  all  earthly  fog  and  darkness,  to  broaden  the  spiritual 
vision,  to  stimulate  faith  and  hope,  to  bind  up  the  broken  hearted, 
to  provide  spiritual  asylum  for  the  sorrowing,  to  show  that  religion 
is  natural  as  well  as  necessary,  that  the  inner,  the  actual,  personal 
qualities  and  forces  are  the  chief  concern,  that  character  is  the  great 
end  of  our  being,  I  will  gratefully  say  with  Simeon  of  old,  "  Now 
lettest  thou  thy  servant  depart  in  peace,  for  mine  eyes  have  seen 
thy  salvation." 


UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA  LIBRARY 
BERKELEY 

Return  to  desk  from  which  borrowed. 
This  book  is  DUE  on  the  last  date  stamped  below. 


' 


LD  21-100m-ll,'49(B7146sl6)476 


Gaylord  Bros. 

Makers 

Syracuse,  N.  Y. 
PAT.  JAN.  21,  1908 


YC   1 5844 


UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA  LIBRARY 


